OPINION

Right to deny?

Re: "Officials may be wishing monk has fled", (Opinion, Feb 20).

I am neither Thai nor a Buddhist, so can offer no opinion on the vexed question of the Dhammakaya sect. However, some questions do spring to mind, which I wish the writer Veera Prateepchaikul had addressed in his article.

If authorities are indeed seeking to "strangle" this sect, is this morally right, or indeed legal? In the latter case, is that why "Section 44" has been invoked?

It may be that the sect's teachings are a distortion of Buddhism, but different interpretations and sects exist in many of the world's religions, including Buddhism, and have done all through the ages.

If a particular sect's teachings appeal to some people, is it right to deny them the right to worship according to their own beliefs?

Secondly, why has this sect in particular attracted such a huge following, many devotees coming so, I have read, from the "wealthy, educated, middle class"?

Most people, even wealthy people, don't give their money away lightly, so there have to be compelling reasons why the sect's popularity and wealth have reached such heights.

If elements within the sect have broken the laws relating to money laundering, fraud and land encroachment, as alleged, then of course they should be held accountable.

But I do wonder whether its particular teachings are sufficient reasons for eradicating the sect itself. Perhaps there are other factors at play here.

The rule of law is a distinctly Western concept which was well championed by the late King Rama IX. Unfortunately, most Thais have not understood what it means nor why it is so vitally important.

The rule of law is the fabric which holds modern society together and prevents those with money and power from oppressing the rest of us.

Recent incidents at Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the proposed coal-fired power plant in Krabi place the rule of law in a clear light. It simply does not exist yet as far as these and thousands of other headlines would tell us. From high constitutional law down to the ability to contest a parking ticket, the law is absolutely meaningless as it is only money and power that rule.

Re: "Time to ban plastic bags", (PostBag, Feb 19).

Any sane person would wholeheartedly agree with "A Concerned Mariner" about the gross misuse of plastic bags in Thailand and the environmental damage they are causing throughout the country, particularly in waterways and the seas around us.

But he is Whistling Dixie if he thinks anything is going to change.

About three or four years ago, in a blaze of self-congratulatory publicity, Tesco-Lotus trumpeted to the world that it was going "green" by trialing a "no plastic bags" policy in some of its stores. That was the last anyone heard of that experiment.

A visit to a Tesco-Lotus store is akin to the plastic bag version of a New York ticker tape parade with plastic bags being thrust at customers left, right and centre.

In the vegetable section some of the fruit, such as grapes, already comes pre-packaged in a plastic bag, but that doesn't stop the staff weighing it and stuffing it into yet another plastic bag.

Other fruit and vegetables come with a perfectly good natural protective skin, like water melons. But instead of sticking the price tag on the skin, these too are stuffed into yet more plastic bags.

Short of a total ban on the use of plastic bags, Tesco-Lotus needs to start training its checkout staff in the more discriminate use of them.